Il. SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS A, THE JUDICIARY REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1980 1. Before B.P. Blg. 129 became operationally effective, R.A. 296, otherwise known as the Judiciary Act of 1948, vested the then Courts of First Instance with original jurisdiction in all matters of probate for both testate and intestate estates, appointment of guardians, trustees and receivers, all actions for annulment of marriage, and in all such special cases and proceedings as were not otherwise provided for (Sec. 44). Subsequently, R.A. 644 amended Sec. 86 of the Judiciary Act to the effect that the then justices of the peace and judges of municipal courts, now the metropolitan, municipal and municipal circuit trial courts, shall have concurrent jurisdiction with the aforesaid Courts of First Instance in the appointment of guardians and in adoption cases. Also, R.A. 643 amended See. 90 of the Judiciary Act to confer on said justices of the peace and judges of the then municipal courts of chartered cities concurrent jurisdiction with the Courts of First Instance to appoint guardians and guardians ad litem for incapacitated persons. Under Sec. 1, Rule 92, the Courts of First Instance and the inferior courts had concurrent jurisdiction in guardianship proceedings over property valued at not more than P 10,000. 2. With the changes in the procedural governance under B.P. Blg. 129, said concurrent jurisdiction in guardianship and adoption cases has been eliminated and exclusive jurisdiction thereover is now vested in theRegional Trial Courts. However, in cases within its jurisdiction, a metropolitan, municipal, or municipal circuit trial court can appoint a guardian ad litem for an incapacitated party therein in proper cases and where said incompetent is not represented by his parents or judicial guardian. 3. On the other hand, B.P. Blg. 129 has conferred exclusive jurisdiction on the so-called inferior courts, “ive. the metropolitan, municipal, or municipal circuit trial courts, in all matters of probate, both testate and intestate, where the 8ross value of the estate does not exceed P20,000 (Sec. 19{4], Sec. 38{1]), Parenthetically, this has resulted in investing said inferior courts with exclusive jurisdiction in summary settlement of estates of small value (Sec, 2, Rule 74) since the maximum jurisdictional limit on the gross estate involved in said Proceedings, testate or intestate, where the value of the estate does not exceed P100,000 or, in Metro Manila, where such estate does not exceed 200,000, exclusive of interest, damages of. whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs, 4. Under the Judiciary Act, the writ of habeas corpus may be issued by the Supreme Court (Sec. 17), the Court of Appeals (Sec, 30) and the Courts of First Instance (Sec. 44/h]), However, in the absence of the District Judge from the province, municipal judges in the capitals of the provinces and city judges in chartered cities couldhear petitions for a writ of habeas corpus (Sec. 88). Under B.P. Blg. 129, in the absence of all the Regional Trial Judges in a province or city, special jurisdiction is ranted to any metropolitan, municipal, or municipal circuit trial judge to hear and decide petitions for a writ of habeas corpus in the province or city where the Regional Trial Judges sit (Sec. 35). 6. R.A. 5967, Sec. 3(a) and (b), conferred on the then, City Courts concurrent jurisdiction with the Courts of First Instance over petitions for change of name of naturalized citizens and for correction or cancellation of typographical errors in entries in the City Civil Registry. Said law is deemed to have been repealed by B.P. Blg. 129 (Lee, et al. us. Presiding Judge, etc., et al., G.R. No. 68786, Nov. 10, 1986). 6. As stated in the earlier part of this work, the former Juvenile and Domestic Relations Courts were integrated by B.P. Blg. 129 into the Regional Trial Courts as component branches thereof. A number of special proceedings under the Rules were under the jurisdiction of said juvenile and domestic relations courts pursuant to the acts or decrees creating the same. B.P. Blg. 129 provides that whenever a Regional Trial Court takes cognizance of juvenile and domestic relations cases, the special rules of procedure applicable under present laws for such cases shall continue to be applied, unless subsequently amended by law or by rules of court (Sec. 24). 7. On October 28, 1997, Congress enacted R.A. 8369, the “Family Courts Act of 1997,” establishing a Family Court in every province or city, with the proviso that if the city is the capital of the province, the Family Court shall be established in the municipality with the highest population. Said court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction to hear and decide, inter alia, petitions for guardianship, custodyof children, habeas corpus in relation to the latter, and adoption of children and the revocation thereof (Sec. 5). Decisions and orders of the court shall be appealable in the same manner and subject to the same conditions as appeals from the ordinary Regional Trial Court (Sec. 1 4). 8. In special Proceedings, publication of judicial orders and notices ig often required for jurisdictional purposes. P.D. 1979, effective January 28, 1977, revised and consolidated all laws and decrees regulating the publication of notices of auction sales in extrajudicial foreclosure of real estate mortgage, judicial notices in sale on execution of real Properties, notices in special proceedings, court orders, summonses, and all similar announcements arising from litigations and required by law to be published ina newspaper or periodical of general circulation (see Basa vs. Mercado, 61 Phil. 682). 9. Art. 41 of the Family Code provides that for the purpose of contracting a subsequent marriage where one for the declaration of the presumptive death of the absentee. Such summary proceeding is not a special Proceeding under the Rules of Court, hence, the filing ofB. THE REVISED RULES OF COURT RULE 72 SUBJECT MATTER AND APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL RULES Section 1. Subject matter of special proceedings. — Rules of special proceedings are provided for in the following cases: (a) Settlement of estate of deceased persons; (b) Escheat; (c) Guardianship and custody of children; (d) Trustees; (e) Adoption; (f) Rescission and revocation of adoption; (g) Hospitalization of insane persons; (h) Habeas corpus; (i) Change of name; @) Voluntary dissolution of corporations; (k) Judicial approval of voluntary recognition of minor natural children; @) Constitution of family home; (m) Declaration of absence and death; (n) Cancellation or correction. of entries in the civil registry. ; NOTES e 1. As distinguished from actions, a special proceeding ig an application: to establish the status or right. of a party or a particular fact (Hogan vs. Eislizemus, 42 Phil. 832), or any remedy other than an ordinary suit in a court of justice (Sec. 3{cj, Rule 1). Unlike actions,a special proceeding ig generally commenced by application, petition or special form of pleading as may be provided for by the particular rule or law. 2. Although paragraph (c) refers only to “children,” guardianship is not limited to children but extends to “incompetents” (Secs. J and 2, Rule 92). Proceedings for the custody of a child whose Parents are separated may be an independent Proceeding or an incident in any other proceeding (Sec. 6, Rule 99 ), but that for a vagrant or abused child is. an independent proceeding in itself (Sec. 7, Rule 99). 3. While paragraph (m) speaks of declaration of “absence and death,” there can not be a special Proceeding instituted just to obtain a declaration of death. Actual or presumptive death can not be the subject of a judicial pronouncement or declaration if it is the only question or matter involved in a case or upon which a competent court has to pass (Re Nicolai Szartraw, 46 0.G., Ist Supp., 243; Lukban vs. Republic, 52 0.G. 1441). Such declaration may be made only in connection with the proceedings for the settlement of the estate of the alleged decedent. Thus, Rule 107 is limited only to a declaration of absence. However, as explained in Note 3 under Sec. 8 of Rule 107, the Family Code authorizes a summary proceeding for the declaration of the presumptive death of the absentee spouse to enable the spouse present to contract a subsequent marriage, under the circumstances and conditions stated therein, Sec. 2. Applicability of rules of civil actions. — In the absence of special provisions, the rules provided for in ordinary actions shall be, as far as practicable, applicable to special proceedings.NOTES 1. There are certain specific provisions for special proceedings as, for instance, the rules on the allegations required to be contained in the pleadings, venue and service of pleadings and processes. 2, The distinction between final and interlocutory orders in civil actions for purposes of determining the issue of appealability is not strictly applicable to orders issued in special proceedings. Rule 109 specifies the orders from which appeals may be taken and some of those orders, from the standpoint of ordinary civil actions, are interlocutory. 3. Rule 33 regarding judgment on demurrer to evidence is applicable to special proceedings (Matute us. CA, et al., L-26751, Jan. 31, 1969).1. SETTLEMENT OF ESTATES OF DECEASED PERSONS RULE 73 VENUE AND PROCESS Section 1. Where estate of deceased Persons settled. — Ifthe decedent is an inhabitant of the Philippines at the time of his death, whether a citizen or an alien, his will shall be proved, or letters of admin- istration granted, and his estate settled, in the Court of First Instance in the province in which he resides at the time of his death, and if he is an inhabitant of a foreign country, the Court of First Instance of any Province in which he had estate. The court first taking cognizance of the settlement of the estate of a decedent, shall exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other courts, The jurisdiction assumed by a court, so far as it depends on the place of residence of the decedent, or of the location of his estate, shall not be contested in a suitor proceeding, except in an appeal from that court, in the original case, or when the want of jurisdiction appears on the record. Sec. 2. Where estate settled upon dissolution of marriage. — When the marriage is dissolved by the death of the husband or wife, the community property shall be inventoried, administered, and liquidated, and the debts thereof paid, in the testate or intestate proceedings of the deceased spouse. If both spouses have died, the conjugal partnership shall be liquidated in the testate or intestate proceedings of either.NOTES 1. The residence of the decedent at the time of his death is determinative of the venue of the proceeding. If he was a resident (“inhabitant”) of the Philippines, venue is laid exclusively in the province of his residence, the jurisdiction being vested in the Court of First Instance thereof (Eusebio us. Eusebio, et al., 100 Phil. 593). “Residence "means his personal, actual or physical habitation, his actual residence or place of abode (Fule, et al. us. CA, et al., L-40502, Nov. 29, 1976), and not to his permanent legal residence or domicile (Jao vs. CA, et al., G.R. No. 128314, May 29, 2002). 2. It is only where the decedent was a non-resident of the Philippines at the time of his death that venue lies in any province in which he had estate, and the then Court of First Instance thereof first taking cognizance of the proceeding for settlement acquires jurisdiction to the exclusion of other courts. This is subject, however, to the preferential jurisdiction of the court where testate proceedings are filed, as hereinafter discussed. 3. The question of residence is determinative only of the venue and does not affect the jurisdiction of the court (Sy Ba vs. Co Ho, 74 Phil. 239; Cuenco, et al. vs. CA, et al., L-24742, Oct. 26, 1979; Fule, et al. vs. CA, et al., supra). Hence, the institution of the proceeding in the province wherein the decedent neither had residence nor estate does not vitiate the action of the probate court. As venue may be waived, the submission of all affected parties to said proceeding is a waiver of objection to this error (see Malig us. Bush, L-22761, May 31, 1969; Rodriguez, et al. us. Borja, etc., et al., L-21993, June 21, 1966). 4. However, where the proceeding was commenced with a court of improper venue, as where the decedent was neither a resident at the time of his death nor had estatetherein; and such objection was seasonably raised in the probate court, the petition should be dismissed and the proceedings should be instituted in the proper court (Eusebio vs. Eusebio, et al., supra). jurisdiction to resolve the issue (De Borja, etc. vs. Tan, etc., et.al., 97 Phil. 872). The branch of the court first taking However, if it learns thereafter that another court has before it a petition for the probate of the decedent’s will, it may hold the petition before it in abeyance and defer to the second court where the probate Proceedings are pending and if the will is admitted to probate therein, it will definitely decline to take cognizance (Cuenco, et al. us. CA, et al., supra). i 6. The probate court acquires jurisdiction over the Proceeding from the moment the petition for settlement is filed with said court. It cannot be divested of such jurisdiction by the subsequent acts of the interested parties, as by entering into an extrajudicial partition of the estate (Sandoval us. Santiago, ete., 83 Phil. 784) or by filing another petition for settlement in a proper court of concurrent venue (De Borja, ete, vs, Tan, etc., et Oly supra). However, the Supreme Court may order a change of venue under its supervisory authority over inferiorcourts (Cuenco, et al. vs. CA, et al., supra). 7. The conjugal partnership shall be liquidated in the proceedings for the settlement of the estate of the deceased spouse or, if both have died, in the proceedings for either estate. If separate proceedings have been instituted for each estate, both proceedings may be consolidated if they were filed in the same court. The probate court has jurisdiction to determine whether the property is conjugal as it has to liquidate the conjugal partnership to determine the estate of the decedent (Bernardo, et al. us. CA, et al., L-18148, Feb. 28, 1963). Since the last sentence of Sec. 2 provides that liquidation may be made in either proceeding where both are still pending, it is a matter of sound judicial discretion in which one it should be made (Phil. Commercial & Industrial Bank, etc. vs. Escolin, etc., et al., L-27860 & L-27896, Mar. 29, 1974). 8. Upon the death of a spouse, no action can be maintained against the surviving spouse for the recovery of a debt chargeable against the conjugal partnership, as the claim should be filed in the settlement proceeding of the estate of the deceased spouse (Calma us, Tajiedo, 66 Phil. 594). Neither may the surviving spouse, after the death of the other, enter into an agreement novatory of a contract executed by both of them during the lifetime of the deceased (Ocampo, et al. us. Potenciano, et al., 89 Phil. 159). The estates of the deceased spouses may be settled in. a single proceeding (Benigno vs. De ta Peja, etc., et al., 57 Phil. 305), but in all other instances, even if the deceased persons are related as ascendants and descendants, their separate estates must be settled in different proceedings (Sy Hong Eng vs. Sy Lioc Suy, 10 Phil. 209). 9. However, if in the determination of the conjugal nature of such property a question of title thereto is raisedby a third person, the probate court has no jurisdiction to determine the title to said Property (Falcatan vs. Sanchez, et al., 101 Phil. 1238) as the issue of title should be threshed out in a Proper action (Lee, et al. vs, CA, etal., L-37185, Dec. 28, 1973). This is especially true in summary proceedings and to avoid delay, as the distribution is always subject to the results of the appropriate suit and the claimant’s rights can be protected by a notice of lis pendens (Ermac, et al. vs. Medelo, et al., L-32281, June 19, 1975). 10. The probate-court may pass upon the question of title to property only where (a) the interested parties who are all heirs of the deceased consent theretosand the interests of third parties are not prejudiced (Marcelino us. Antonio, 70 Phil. 388: Vda. de Mavalac vs. Ocampo, 73 Phil. 661; Cunanan vs. Amparo, 80 Phil. 287), as where the parties are all heirs of the deceased (Sebial us. Sebial, et al., L-23419, June 27, 1975); and (b) in a provisional manner, to determine whether said property should be included in or excluded from the inventory, without prejudice to the final determination of title in a separate action (Bernardo, et al. vs. CA, et al., supra; Vda. de Valera, et al. us. Ofilada, etc., et al., L-27526, “Sept. 12, 1974; Valera, et al. us. Inserto, et al.;, G.R. No. 56504, May 7, 1987) especially where the property is in the possession of a third party who has a certificate of title thereto (Cuizon, et al. us. Ramolete, et al., G.R. No. 51291, May 29, 1984). Although, generally, a probate court may not decide a question of title or ownership, yet if the interested parties are all heirs, or the question is one of collation ‘or advancement, or the parties consent to the assumption of jurisdiction by the probate court and the rights of third persons are not impaired, the probate court is competent to decide the question of ownership (Coca, et al. is.Pangilinan, et al., L-27082, Jan. 31, 1978). Thus, where an action has been filed by strangers to recover property involved in the settlement proceedings, said plaintiffs may be allowed by the probate court to intervene in the proceedings but only to protect their interests and not for decision on their claims (Dinglasan, et al. vs. Ang Chia, etc., et al., 88 Phil. 476; Baquial vs. Amihan, etc., et al., 92 Phil. 501). 11. The probate court has the power to determine questions as to who are the heirs of the decedent (Reyes vs. Ysip, etc., et al., 97 Phil. 11), the recognition of a natural child (Gaas us. Fortich, 54 Phil. 196), the validity of disinheritance effected by the testator (Hilado vs. Ponce de Leon, [CA], 50 O.G. 222; see Sec. 1, Rule 90), and the status of a woman who claims to be the lawful wife of the decedent (Torres us. Javier, 34 Phil. 882). It further has the jurisdiction to pass upon the validity of a waiver of hereditary rights (Borromeo-Herrera vs, Borromeo, et al., L-41171, July 23, 1987, deciding 3 other cases therein). Its jurisdiction extends to matters incidental or collateral to the settlement:and distribution of the estate, such as the determination of the status of each heir and whether the property in the inventory is conjugal or exclusive property of the deceased spouse. _ 12. The probate court has no jurisdiction to rule on the validity of the redemption effected by the administrator of the realty mortgaged during the decedent’s lifetime and thereafter sold at extrajudicial foreclosure sale to the mortgagee who has taken possession thereof, especially where the timeliness of such redemption and the validity of the tender and the payment of the redemption price is questioned by the mortgagee who is a stranger to the estate proceeding. The validity of the redemption, if upheld, is effectively a judgment that the property is owned by theestate. Questions to title should be litigated in a separate action (Morales, et al. vs. CFI of Cavite, et al., L-47125, Dee. 29, 1986). 18, The probate court generally can not issue writs of execution because its orders usually refer to the adjudication of claims against the estate which the executor or administrator may satisfy without the need of executory processes. The Rules, however, specify the instances wherein the probate court may issue a writ of execution, i.e., to satisfy the contributive shares of the devisees, legatees and heirs in possession of the decedent’s assets (Sec, 6, Rule 88), to enforce payment of the expenses of ‘partition (Sec. 3, Rule'90), and to satisfy the costs when a person is cited for examination in probate proceedings (See. 13, Rule 142), Under the rule of inclusio unius est exclusio alterius, these would be the only instances when the probate court can issue a writ of execution (Vda. de Valera, et al. vs. Ofilada, et al., L-27526, Sept. 12, 1974). Sec. 8. Process. — In the exercise of probate jurisdiction, Courts of First Instance may issue warrants and process necessary to compel the attendance of witnesses or to carry into effect their orders and judgments, and all other Powers granted them by law. If a person does not perform an order or judgment rendered by a court in the exercise of its probate jurisdiction, it may issue a warrant for the apprehension and imprisonment of such person until he performs such order or judgment, or is released, Sec. 4. Presumption of death, — For purposes of settlement of his estate, a Person shall be presumed dead if absent and unheard from for the periods fixed in the Civil Code. But if such person proves to be alive, he shall be entitled to the balance of his estateRULE 74 SUMMARY SETTLEMENT OF ESTATES Section 1. Extrajudicial settlement by agreement between heirs. — If the decedent left no will and no debts and the heirs are all of age, or the minors are represented by their judicial or legal representatives duly authorized for the purpose, the parties may, without securing letters of administration, divide the estate among themselves as they see fit by means of a public instrument filed in the office of the register of deeds, and should they disagree, they may do so in an ordinary action of partition, If there is only one heir, he may adjudicate to himself the entire estate by means of an affidavit filed in the office of the register of deeds. The parties to an extrajudicial settlement, whether by public instrument or by stipulation in a pending action for partition, or the solé heir who adjudicates the entire estate to himself by means of an affidavit shall file, simultaneously with and as a condition precedent to the filing of the public instrument, or stipulation in the action for partition, or of the affidavit in the office of the register of deeds, a bond with the said register of deeds, in an amount equivalent to the value of the personal property involved as certified to under oath by the parties concerned and conditioned upon the payment of any-just claim that may be filed under section 4 of this rule. It shall be presumed that the decedent left no debts if no creditor files a petition for letters of administration within two (2) years after the death of the decedent. The fact of the extrajudicial settlement or administration shall be published in a newspaperafter payment of all his debts. The palance may be recovered by motion in the same proceeding. NOTES 1. Under the Civil Code, the absentee shall be presumed dead for the purpose of opening his succession after an absence of 10 years, but if he disappeared after the age of 75 years, an absence of 5 years is sufficient (Art. $90). Tf, however, the absentee was on poard a vessel lost during a sea voyage, OF an. airplane which is missing, or was in the armed forces and has taken part in war, or has been in danger of death under other circumstances, only 4 years is required (Art. 391). . 9, Art. 392 of the Civil Code provides as follows: “If the absentee appears, OF without appearing his existence is proved, he shall recover his property in the condition in which it may be found, and the price of any property that may have been alienated or the property acquired therewith; but he cannot. claim either fruits or rents.” 3, Taken conjointly with said Art. 392 of the Civil Code, the recovery by the returning absentee of his estate js aubject to the conditions that (a) all his debts must have peen paid; (b) he shall recover his property in the condition jn which it may be, found, together with the price of any property that may have been alienated or the property acquired therewith; and (c) he js not entitled to fruits or rents.of general circulation in the manner provided in the next succeeding section; but no extrajudicial settlement shall be binding upon any person who has not participated therein or had no notice thereof. : NOTES 1, This Rule actually provides for two exceptions to the requirement that the estate of the decedent should be judicially administered through an administrator or executor, viz.: (a) Extrajudicial settlement (Sec. 1); and (b) Summary settlement of estates of small value (Sec. 2). Ht 2. The salient distinctions between these two methods of settlement are as follows: a. Extrajudicial settlement, as the term implies, does not require court intervention, while summary settlement involves judicial adjudication although in a summary proceeding. b. Inthe first, the value of the estate is immaterial, while the second applies only where the gross estate does not exceed P10,000. This amount is jurisdictional (Del Rosario vs. Conanan, et al., L-37903, Mar. 30, 1977). c. Extrajudicial settlement is allowed only in intestate succession, while summary settlement is allowed in both testate and intestate estates. d. The first is proper only where there are no outstanding debts of the estate at the time of settlement, while the second is available even if there are debts, as the court will make provisions for the payment thereof.e. Extrajudicial settlement can be resorted to only at the instance and by agreement of all the heirs, while summary settlement proceedings may be instituted by any interested party and even by a creditor of the estate, without the consent of all the heirs, 8. - The requisites of a valid extrajudicial settlement are: (a) The decedent died intestate; . (b) There are no outstanding debts of the estate at the time of the settlement; (c) The heirs are all of age, or the minors are represented by their judicial guardians or legal representatives; (d) The settlement is made in a public instrument, stipulation or affidavit duly filed with the register of deeds; and (e) The fact of such extrajudicial settlement must be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the province once a week for three (8) consecutive weeks. 4. Extrajudicial settlement presupposes concurrence among all the heirs to the partition of the estate as provided in the instrument. If they cannot agree on the manner of partition, they may institute an action for partition unless the same is prohibited by an agreement; by the donor or testator, or by law (Art. 494, Civil Code). If despite the institution of such action they subsequently arrive at an agreement, they may enter into the corresponding stipulation and register the same with the register of deeds (see Sec, 2, Rule 69). 5. Where the case is proper for extrajudicial settle: ment, a dissenting heir cannot insist on instituting administration proceedings which would be superfluous and unnecessary (Monserrat vs. Ibatiez, 88 Phil. 785),unless he can establish good reasons for not resorting to an action for partition (Rodriguez, et al. vs. Tan, ete., et al., 92 Phil. 273). Recourse to an administration proceeding, even if the estate has no debts, is sanctioned only if the heirs have good reasons for not resorting to an action for partition and the claims of the heirs may be properly ventilated and settled therein (Pereira vs. CA, et al., G.R. No. 81147, June'20, 1989). 6. The present Rules require a public instrument for purposes of extrajudicial settlement. Although this requirement also appeared in the old Rules, it was held that the partition as actually made was effective as among the parties thereto although it was not evidenced by any writing, much less a public instrument (Hernandez us: Andal, 78 Phil. 196). Under the new Rules, however, it would appear that a public instrument is now required for registration. If the settlement is in a private instrument, it is believed that the same is still:valid and reformation of jthe instrument may be compelled (Arts, 1359, et seq., Civil Code). 7. While the Rule provides that the decedent must not have left any debts, it is sufficient if any debts he may have left have been paid at the time the extrajudicial settlement is entered into (Guico vs. Bautista, 110 Phil. 584). It is presumed that the decedent left no debts if no creditor files a petition for letters of administration within two years after the death of the decedent. Such presumption is rebuttable. 8. Abond is required only when personalty is involved in the extrajudicial partition, as the real estate is subject to a lien in favor of creditors, heirs or other persons for the full period of two years from such distribution and such lien cannot be substituted by a bond (Rebong vs. Ibafiez, * 79 Phil. 324). The value of the personal property whichmust be covered by the bond is determined from the sworn declaration of the parties in the instrument of settlement. or affidavit of adjudication or, if not mentioned therein, in an affidavit stating such valuation which the register of deeds shall require them to execute (LRC Circular No. 143, Jan. 28, 1964). 9. The minor distributee in an extrajudicial settlement should be represented therein by a judicial guardian; but if the property adjudicated to him is not worth more than P2,000 he may be represented by his legal guardian, i.e., his father, or in the latter's absence, his mother (Art. 320, Civil Code; see, however, Arts. 234 and 236, Family Code, as amended by R.A. 6809). Sec. 2. Summary settlement of estates of small value. — Whenever the gross value of the estate of a deceased person, whether he died testate or intestate, does not exceed ten thousand pesos, and that fact is made to appear to the Court of First Instance having jurisdiction of the estate by the petition of an interested person and upon hearing, which shall be held not less than one (1) month nor more than three (3) months from the date of the last publication of a notice which shall be published once a week for three (3) consecutive weeks. in a newspaper of general circulation in the province, and after such other notice to interested persons as the court may direct, the court may proceed summarily, without the appointment of an executor or administrator, and without delay, to grant, if proper, allowance of the will, if any there be, to determine who are the persons legally entitled to participate in the estate, and to apportion and divide it among them after the pa ich debts of the estate as the court shall ‘to be due; and such persons, in their own nt 6 Of lawfuland legal capacity, or by their guardians or ees legally appointed and qualified, if other- , shall thereupon be entitled to receive and enter the possession of the portions of the estate to ectively. The court shall be just respecting the costs e proceedings, and all orders and judgments e or rendered in the course thereof shall be ded in the office of the clerk, and the order of tition or award, if it involves real estate, shall 6 recorded in the proper register’s office. _ Sec. 3. Bond to be filed by distributees. — The court, before allowing 4 partition in accordance with the provisions of the preceding section, may require the distributees, if property other than real is to be distributed, to file a pond in an amount to be fixed by the court, conditioned for the payment of any just claim which may be filed under the next succeeding section. 4 NOTES 4. In view of the amendments under B.P. Blg. 129, the summary settlement of estates of small value contemplated in this section is now within the jurisdiction , of the so-called inferior courts. 2, The amount of the bond to be filed by the distributees of personal property in summary settlement proceedings js determined by the court, unlike that in extrajudicial settlement wherein the amount of the bond js equal to the value of the personal property as established by the instrument of adjudication. Mae Although, asa yule, the probate court cannot pass upon the issue of title in summary proceedings when one of the heirs asserts an adverse claim to the propertyinvolved therein (Guzman vs, Anog, et al., 87 Phil. 61), where it is clear that the property really belongs to the decedent, the probate court may determine ina summary settlement who are. the parties entitled thereto since in such a proceeding it is directed to act summarily and without delay (Vda. de Francisco vs. Carreon, et al., 95 Phil. 237) Sec. 4, Liability of distributees and estate. — If it shall appear at any time within two (2) years after the settlement and distribution of an estate in accordance with the provisions of either of the first two sections of this rule, that an heir or other person has been unduly deprived of his lawful participation in the estate, such heir or such other person may compel the settlement of the estate in the courts in the manner hereinafter provided for the Purpose of satisfying such lawful participation. And if within the same time of two (2) years, it shall appear that there are debts outstanding against the estate which have not been paid, or that an heir or other person has been unduly deprived of his lawful participation payable in money, the court having jurisdiction of the estate may, by order for that purpose, after hearing, settle the amount of such debts or lawful participation and order how much and in what manner each distributee shall contribute in the payment thereof, and may issue execution, if circumstances require, against the bond provided in the preceding section or against the real estate belonging to the deceased, or both. Such bond and such real estate shall remain charged with a liability to creditors, heirs, or other Persons for the full period of two (2) years after such distribution, notwithstanding any transfers of real estate that may have been made.Sec. 5. Period for claim of minor or incapacitated person. — If on the date of the expiration of the period of two (2) years prescribed in the preceding section the person authorized to file a claim is a minor or mentally incapacitated, or is in prison or outside of the Philippines, he may present his claim within one (1) year after such disability is removed. NOTES 1. The two-year lien upon the real property distri- buted by extrajudicial or summary eattlement shall be annotated on the title issued to the distributees and, after the lapse of the period, may be cancelled by the register of deeds without need of a court order (LRC Circular No. 148, dated Jan. 28, 1964). Such lien cannot be discharged nor the annotation cancelled within the two- year period even if the distributees offer to post a bond to answer for the contingent claims for which the lien is established (Rebong us. Ibafiez, 79 Phil. 324), 2. The discovery of unpaid debts after the extraju- dicial settlement has been effected does not ipso facto jnvalidate the partition. In such a case, the creditor may ask for administration of enough property of the estate sufficient to pay the debt, but the heirs can prevent such administration by paying the obligation (McMicking vs. Sy Conbieng, 21 Phil. 211); or the creditor can file an ordinary action against the distributees for his claim. 3. Where the estate has been summarily settled, the unpaid creditor may, within the two-year period, file a motion in the court wherein such summary settlement was. had for the payment of his credit. After the lapse of the two-year period, an ordinary action may be instituted against the distributees within the statute of limitations, but not against the bond.4.. Anextrajudicial settlement, despite the publication thereof in a newspaper, shall not be binding on any person who has not participated therein or who had no notice thereof (Sec. 1, last par.). A summary settlement is likewise not binding upon heirs or creditors who were not parties therein or had no knowledge thereof (see Sampilo, et al. vs. CA, et al., 103 Phil. 70). Said heirs or creditors may vindicate their rights either by pro- ceeding against the estate, the distributees or against the bond within the two-year period, or even thereafter but within the statute of limitations, but, this time, they can no longer proceed against the bond. 5. The action to annul a deed of extrajudicial settlement on the ground of fraud should be filed within four years from the discovery of the fraud (Gerona, et al. us. De Guzman, et al., L-19060, May 29, 1964). 6. It is settled doctrine that if special proceedings are pending or there is a need to file one, for the deter- mination of heirship, that issue should be determined in said special proceedings. Where those special pro- ceedings had been finally terminated and the putative heir had lost his right to be declared therein as a co-heir, an ordinary civil action can be timely filed for his declaration as an heir. Where under the circumstances of the case there is no compelling reason to still subject the dece- dent’s estate to administration proceedings, since a determination of claimant’s status as heir could be achieved in the civil case he filed for the annulment of the titles awarded to the others in a prior extrajudicial or summary settlement of the estate, the trial court should proceed with the civil case and determine the status and claims’ of the plaintiff therein (Portugal, et al. us. Portugal-Beltran, G.R. No. 155555, Aug. 16, 2005).